turtledovefandomcom-20200216-history
Talk:James Longstreet
Why is Longstreet in as a Catholic? Turtle Fan 06:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC) :He converted at some point in his life. TR 15:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC) :Tis true. While doing business in postbellum New Orleans. Jelay14 18:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC) ::Really? A nineteenth-century Republican and a Southerner? Well I guess if you've already combined both of those, anything is possible. Turtle Fan 21:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC) Pictures You know, I was thinking. The picture we have, of the older man in the civilian suit (an ex-Confederate general turned Republican Catholic, ain't that a kick in the head) fits TL-191 very well, which is why I uploaded it when we first wrote a Longstreet article back in the day. The GotS section seems to deserve one of the more common wartime pictures. I'm going to fiddle around with the template in a minute. If this works, I'll also do it for Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. and anyone else I can think of who's in the same boat. Turtle Fan 22:16, August 19, 2010 (UTC) :Well that didn't work. :( I think I'll just leave it for now. :I took the liberty to do a little polishing of the article and I was surprised to learn that Longstreet's father hailed from the great state of New Jersey. You're not used to thinking of a Confederate, even one who was pretty much disowned by the diehards for heresy, having northern roots so close to the surface. It does make sense, though. His people were Dutch and my homestate started out as a Dutch colony, in the period when the Laengestraets first came to the New World. Turtle Fan 22:35, August 19, 2010 (UTC) ::I see what you were trying to do. Let me go back to the original template. I never created the option of multiple photos, but I'll try to do that. TR 22:48, August 19, 2010 (UTC) ::Tell me if that's what you had in mind, TF. Personally, I think having second photo as a thumb in the body works better than in the template. TR 22:55, August 19, 2010 (UTC) :::That's what I was thinking, but now that I look at it, the other way is more aesthetically pleasing, especially since I've long been none too happy about the fact that so many of our infoboxes extend much farther down the page than the article. I realize there's no help for it, but I don't like how it looks and I'd normally be disinclined to make those infoboxes even longer. :::On the other hand, having the second picture in its own thumbnail somehow makes it look like it's been banished, like it's not on the same level as the first--Which is ridiculous, but I can't shake the perception. Turtle Fan 00:15, August 20, 2010 (UTC) ::::I think I'd rather you struggle with your perception than have the elongated infobox. That's probably selfish of me. TR 15:10, August 20, 2010 (UTC) :::::No, it's fine. I hate the elongated infoboxes too. At least with the short articles; with very long ones we might want to play with the multiple pictures feature. We could put Joe Steele's "official portrait" under the Joe Steele section of Stalin's infobox. :::::We should probably say that, when multiple images are involved, the one used in the infobox should be the one most relevant to OTL. Now they're all relevant to OTL because they were all taken at some point in history, but obviously some are more useful than others. We've got a picture of Longstreet here from the 1860s and one from the 1880s; we remember him because of what he did in the 1860s. In the 1880s the historical Longstreet just kind of became an old guy; had he actually been President, that might have rivalled his generalship for his importance (or it might not have--The generalships of Grant, Eisenhower, and Wellington, to name a few, were more memorable than the presidencies of the first two and the premiership of the third). But no one says "Ah, yes, Longstreet. He was US ambassador to the Ottoman Empire." And his other jobs all go down in memorability from there. (Now granted, his rejection of the Lost Cause mythology is a significant part of his legacy, but even then, we only care about it because he'd made such a splash in the Rebel army.) :::::Oliver Wendell Holmes, on the other hand, should have his old man picture in the Infobox and his young man picture embedded into the M&S article. The fact that he told Lincoln to get off the parapet is an interesting piece of trivia (I've got it recreated in my toy soldier display) but it still pales in significance to his impact on American jurisprudence. True, Lincoln being killed during the war would probably make for a more dramatically different timeline than Holmes not joining the Supreme Court, but Holmes's role in the former POD would have been very tangential at best. Turtle Fan 15:34, August 20, 2010 (UTC) ::::::Then again . . . Holmes's conservatism on the bench pissed Roosevelt off and made him regret ever having nominated him. This was a major cause of Roosevelt's feeling that the judiciary should be subordinate to the elected branches, one of his most serious differences with Taft. If you take Holmes out of the picture you've got an outside chance of being able to concoct a timeline in which Roosevelt supports Taft for reelection and a united GOP holds the White House in 1912. Given all that happened in that term, especially WWI, you might be able to play with that. For instance, if Taft knew how aggressively the Royal Navy was violating the neutrality of American shipping, might he have chilled Anglo-American relations, or even supported the Germans? I really don't know; I do know that having Roosevelt win in 1912 would have led to Americans in Entente trenches by the end of 1915, but Taft's more of a dark horse. ::::::Just a ruminaiton. Carry on. Turtle Fan 15:43, August 20, 2010 (UTC) Collaborator Really? Johnathan has expanded the definition in the category such that Longstreet would fit but I had some vague concerns when I read it. This only confirms it. Would the two of you please review his work so we can discuss it? Thanks. I also notice he added a number of Nazi puppet heads of state too from OTL WWII. This is less worrying but I think a more rigorous criteria for cut-off should be developed. ML4E (talk) 17:25, September 23, 2015 (UTC) :Yeah, he's no collaborator. Not only that, the circumstances Jonathan uses to make the case could easily be considered inflammatory. WWII puppets probably count, but we'll have to look at them case by case. Turtle Fan (talk) 12:58, September 24, 2015 (UTC) Deletion DOI and TWCE can be moved. TR (talk) 05:06, August 10, 2016 (UTC) :I'd delete TWTPE altogether. Ralph Longstreet already has it covered, and while it's an interesting bit for him (the only thing that makes him remotely memorable, actually) it's irrelevant to James. Turtle Fan (talk) 07:14, August 10, 2016 (UTC) :Definitely move DoI. I'm leaning towards TF's suggestion of deleting the TWtCE reference. I took the liberty of editing Ralph's entry slightly, earlier. ML4E (talk) 18:38, August 10, 2016 (UTC)